You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Thanks Sean.
I don't actually know why there are no MasterCash Tables @ 2p-4p, & I wish there were, but I suppose I could guess the reason.
As to televising them, yes, it'd be nice, of course it would, though I'm not convinced that showing too much 2p-4p Cash Action is the most cost-efficient way forward for a TV Channel that needs to attract viewers & new sign-ups. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, & there will always be more interest in the "bigger" games.
Where do you get this idea from?....
"....Rightly or wrongly sometimes it feels people make all manner of positive suggestions for the site which appear to fall on deaf ears....."
Just because a suggestion is not implemented, does not mean it "falls on deaf ears". Many suggestions make no sense, or are impractical. That's not ignoring them. EVERY suggestion with any practical merit is considered. Bear in mind, most come from poker players who have no knowledge of running a poker site, or business practice generally.
"....Anything that can be done to promote the game should be encouraged....."
Do you not think Sky Poker help to promote poker generally? Would you like to list all the other poker sites that run a 24/7 Poker TV Channel & a Forum? Be a pretty short list.....
"....But I passionately believe anything that a site can do to encourage / promote the game should be supported. A big thing Sky could do in this regard is offer better terms for micro players in relation to rake, which would have a follow on higher up the chain....."
I also believe we all - Sites AND players - need to go on a PR offensive, & try & encourage more people to play our great game. Personally, yes, I would prefer the rake @ micro stakes to be lower, of course I would, my record of supporting low stakes players over many years (especially via APAT) is there for all to see. Suggesting that it is the cure-all for all of poker's ills is incorrect though.
Micro stakes players are like everyone else - they want to buy their product cheaper. That is perfectly understandable. Micro stake players generally have little interest in "good for the game" - what they want is cheaper poker, & I don't blame them one iota. But we need to call a spade a spade, & not dress it up as something else.
I had no particular wish to engage in this debate, but I was goaded into it, by suggestions that I had been told not to reply by the Business. What I've tried to do is bring balance, understanding, & explanations, as to "why". Someone needed to, it was all one way traffic. That's not a debate, a debate needs both sides expressed.
As to the thrust of the dabate, the "good for the game" cliche, I'll answer that more generally when I reply to Teddy Bloat's excellent Post.
"....If we all keep paying it, there really is little point in lowering the rake...."
Supply & demand, the greatest natural leveller of all.
"....the 200bb NL4, I thought the only purpose of that was so you could hands shown on TV from all levels......"
Well I don't know, I'm just guessing, but no, I think that is back to front.
MasterCash Tables were NOT introduced to satisfy Ch 861, nothing ever is, the tail does not wag the dog. 861 is simply a promotional arm of the Business, it does not in itself dictate anything.
Televised Cash Tables were shown well before MasterCash Tables were introduced.
What (I assume) happened when the Mastercash Tables were introduced (in response to Customer demand for deeper-stacked cash games) was that someone Upstairs decided that deep-stacked cash would be a better product to televise, & so the MasterCash Tables were all given a TV Icon.
I have no idea why "non-Mastercash tables" are not shown these days, does seem a bit odd I suppose.
I suppose TV Icons could be added to non-Mastercash Tables at the flick of a switch, but there's never enough time to show everything people would like to see.
Given that cash games are the backbone of this & every other poker site (70% of action, give or take a few %), cash action does not really get the exposure on 861 it deserves, in some senses. I suppose MTT's are, to be fair, more exciting, they all have a beginning, a middle, & an end, unlike cash games which don't have those peaks of excitement which the majority of viewers want to see.
Man C 0, Stoke City 1
Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Just addressing the higlighted parts for now.
1) That's how business works, generally.
2) Roulette is the most popular gambling game on earth, more people play it than any other game of it's type. Do you think they can beat roulette? We like to gamble, for the vast majority of micro-stakes players, it is a recreation which costs money, just like going down the pub, crown-green bowling, watching football, or visiting wooded car parks late at night on spurious grounds.
3) Deffo agree with that, you are very pro-Sky Poker, we are just having a debate. I agree, I wish the micro-stakes here were lower. I do. But the Business must have good reason, it is run by clever people, & SB&G has achieved outstanding results.
What I have tried to do is explain why, perhaps, the prices are what they are. It has nothing to do with my personal views on micro-stake players, I've supported them long & hard, over many years, both here & away from here, at APAT & similar, & I intend to continue so to do, as long as I am involved in the game.
Anyway, I'll now take a look at this "good for the game" thing, which we see quoted so very frequently. Sometimes I do wish I was not so contrarian, but it's good to look at things from a different angle sometimes, Charlie Munger style.
"...Recognize reality even when you don’t like it – especially when you don’t like it....."
If you happen to have a few minutes to spare, I feel sure you'll enjoy the musings of Mr Munger. (He is Warren Buffett's business partner). Just google "Charlie Munger quotes". I promise you, you won't regret it, it's lovely stuff.
Go on, have a quick google of that.....
good for the game......
Well first up, let's be right here.
Online Poker Sites are commercial entities. Their aim is to maximise shareholder value, so they do things firstly in their own interests. That applies to every single poker site, bar none. There are no exceptions.
So whatever they do, their ultimate objective is to gain more revenue over the longer term.
"Longer term" means yes, to a degree, they need to do what's good for the game. Self-evident really.
Now, looking at this in its widest sense, do we really think that Sky Poker, who, globally, are barely a speck on the traffic landscape, can do much to make poker better?
They can try, yes, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't make a deal of difference.
I don't think, for example, having a Poker channel does any harm to poker generally, but I don't see too many other sites having one.
Micro-stakes rake @ Sky Poker may not be a good thing, I agree, but it barely makes any difference to poker generally, & I don't think anyone can say it damages the game. If peeps don't like the product or price, they simply go elsewhere, there are hundreds of alternatives, but generally, customers don't just look at one element, they look at the basket of value.
What WOULD make a difference is if the dominant player in the Market did certain things.
One site has over 80% - EIGHTY PER CENT - of the Market. Now there is a site that COULD make poker better. In fact, they already have by their sheer scale & general excellence. They are a wonderful site, too, no doubt about that. I played there from the day they started, & still have my Account there. If I saw a decent PLO8 game there, that I thought I could beat (lol), I might even play it.
But do we think that allowing third party software there is good for the game? Do micro-stakes & recreationals have a chance of beating guys armed with all manner of artificial aids?
How many different types of third party software do you think are allowed there? Guess.
10? No.
20? Try again.
50? Not even warm yet.
The answer is 118.
Do we really think that gives recreationals & micro-stakes players a reasonable chance of beating the game? The rake is less, yes. The playing field is level, no.
More expensive here, but fairer. Cheaper there, but arguably less fair.
That's the choice players have. And they can & will make their own minds up.
good for the game?
You judge that.
Wat it good for the game when all our accounts got frozen because they had been flouting the law?
You can judge that, too.
My point is, I see this good for the game cliche time & time again. I think it's a bit wider than the rake levels on a single site, & I can see far better things which should lobby for.
So there it is, all questions answered, even if you don't like the answers.
Personally, I wish the rake was level across all buy-ins. Its not, but I've tried to offer a few of the reasons, as I see them.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, see you on the tables later, I hope.
Last day of the month, get those Reward Points topped up, it's good for the game. Oh, wait.....
Thanks Teddy. I replied at length, but before I could press "POST", a Pop-Up killed my Post. Pfft!
SORT IT OUT SKY!!!ELEVEN!!
2) Roulette is the most popular gambling game on earth, more people play it than any other game of it's type. Do you think they can beat roulette? We like to gamble, for the vast majority of micro-stakes players, it is a recreation which costs money, just like going down the pub, crown-green bowling, watching football, or visiting wooded car parks late at night on spurious grounds.
the difference between roulette - a game where the house has a low edge and a punter can spin a few quid into a few hundred in a session - and unbeatable micro stakes dyms is that in the micro dym you simply cannot turn a few quid into a decent amount. - even long term you can be beating the field 59% of the time and still go slowly broke. i'm not arguing for uber low rake, just enough so that games are beatable for micro stake players.
i'm not saying that people dont currently have fun playing just that they might have more fun if they could turn that initail deposit, with the winds of variance at their back, into a decent amount over the course of a month.
i have no idea what effect that this Obstacle To Win Rate has on redeposits - it may have none in which case my input aint worth jack. but we do see people fustrated at not being able to beat games and quitting, we do see people who think that the rng is the only thing that stops them from winning in games filled with players that they should be beating [in a pithy sense it is the site's rake level that is the true 'rig' preventing them winning] - so there might just be legs in the idea that if games were beatable then people might be encouraged to play / deposit more [i would think that applies to pure recreationals that dont mind losing the poker budget each month and the aspiring players who enjoy learning about strategy and playing competetively]. again i may be extremely naive making that correlation: people far smarter than i have more information than me and are coming to a different conclusion, so meh.
on a more basic level and purely donning my poker-player-trade-unionist flat cap and donkey jacket -given that micro players are unlikely to be aware of these issues and how to voice them i do think it incumbent on us who have escaped those stakes to make a case on their behalf. and sites offering games that are unbeatable just plain grinds my gears in general - rightly or wrongly.
finally, **edit i have just read the post above mine**, i dont know how much sky pay you, but it isnt enough. thanks for your input on this.
top man.
Stats on the balance sheet? Well we should always read between the lines when doing that, as any accountant will tell us. But overall, I doubt they look much further than stats & balance sheets - it's a business. We are poker enthusiasts, they are a Business. There is bound to be conflict. It's standard, & it's fine.
That French site you refer to? Yes, very good indeed, & full of new ideas. Like. I don't like - personally - the idea of all the rigmarole of having to Register with a Foreign site though, & sending them scanned documents.
Again, their rake is probably lower, but they don't have several things that Sky Poker have, 861, Community, tons of Promos every month. Or some boring old geezer, way past his poker sell-by-date, trying to answer Clients questions.
And players HAVE THAT CHOICE.
Now that IS good for the game, don't you think?
PS - Look forward to your end of month report in your Diary tomoprrow. I'm making OVER 1p per game this month. Can you beat that?
I haven't read all posts but stars and rake seemed to mentioned a quite a bit.
What people are forgetting is sky is softer than stars.
I am quite happy to get less rakeback or even pay higher rake for a softer table.
Remember its about the total package. On sky we get very generous sports bettors/sky bingo players who have had a big win and wanting to share the wealth. You don't get this on stars. Sky is also better at getting new players, someone who has never played poker is much more likely to play on sky than a company they have never heard of.
Is stars really bigger than sky? In terms of unique UK players I don't think it is.
Grind 2p/4p on here for a month, then do the same on stars for a month. I bet you will make more here.
I still think the lobby is ridiculously cluttered, but yes its not as cluttered as stars.